27/VI 99.

I received your letter of 2/VK last Friday, the 18th, but I have not received either Mehring or Karelina, which you write that you are sending. I waited at first, thinking the postal delay was to blame, but now I must suppose that the package is either lost or you have postponed sending it. If the first is correct, please file a declaration without delay.*)

Your review of my book delighted me greatly. All the same, I think regarding its translation you may have exaggerated somewhat: it is doubtful that the Germans would read a work stuffed with purely local, so to speak, and petty facts.2) True, N.—he did translate it (but he already had a very great reputation and probably Engels's recommendation, although the latter was going to tear it apart, according to the monist).3) Have you encountered reviews of it in German literature? If I am not mistaken, it was also translated into French. I was somewhat surprised by your words that you "finally managed to obtain" my book.... Did you not receive it from Moscow or Petersburg? I asked them to send it to you, as to all my other acquaintances, and they all received it. If you did not receive it, let me know, and I will write again to Moscow.

I have not seen any reviews of it in print so far, and before autumn I do not expect to see any—besides, I read from the newspapers only the "Russian Gazette," which continues "to maintain tactful silence"....

I read Bulgakov's article in the Archive.4) I do not intend to write an answer to him for the German public as well: first, I cannot write in German; second—and this is the main thing, even if one could find a translator from Russian—the article in the spirit in which I wrote it for the Russian public is altogether unsuitable for the German public, i.e., with a detailed exposition of Kautsky's book.

On Bulgakov's specific points (based on German statistics) I cannot answer, because I do not have the materials. Regarding his general point of view (Kantian and... Bernsteinian, if one may so express it) I also will not undertake to write for the Germans. I think that indeed it is necessary to correct the Germans' notion of Russian disciples, but for this (if no one else undertakes to write a special article) a simple note about my article against Bulgakov would suffice, once that article is printed in a Russian journal. But if it is not printed at all... with the death of "Nachalo" and with the refusal of "Zhizn'" or censorship... then the matter will take on a substantially different character.5)

Regarding the "earth-shattering discoveries" of the Russian disciples and their neo-Kantianism, I am coming into ever greater and greater bewilderment. I read an article by Tugan-Baranovskii in No. 5 of "Scientific Review".... Devil knows what stupid and pretentious nonsense! Without any historical study of Marx's doctrine, without any new investigations, on the basis of errors in schemas (arbitrary alteration of the norm of surplus value), on the basis of elevating to a general rule the most exceptional case (increased productivity of labor without a decrease in the value of the product: an absurdity if one takes this as a general phenomenon), on this basis to declare a "new theory," a mistake by Marx, a restructuring....6) No, I cannot believe your report that Tugan-Baranovskii is becoming ever more of a Genosse.7) Mikhailovskii was right in calling him an "echo-man": his little article in "World of God" ("according to Beltov," remember? in '95) and this article confirm such a harsh judgment by a partial critic.8) And this is confirmed by what I heard from you and from Nadia about his personal qualities.9) Of course, all this is not enough for a final conclusion and I may well be mistaken. It will be interesting to know your opinion of his article.

Yes, also this idea of distinguishing between "sociological" and "economic" categories, launched by Struve (in No. 1 of "Scientific Review") and repeated by P. Berlin (in "Life") and Tugan-Baranovskii.10) In my opinion, it promises nothing but the most vapid and scholastic play in definitions, called by Kantians the impressive name "critique of concepts" or even "epistemology." I decidedly do not understand what sense such a distinction can have?? How can there be something economic outside the social??

By the way, regarding neo-Kantianism. Whose side are you taking? I have read with great pleasure and re-read the "Contributions to the History of Materialism," read articles by the same author in the Neue Zeit against Bernstein and Konrad Schmidt (in No. 5, Neue Zeit 98-99: I have not seen further issues),11) read Stammler, whom our Kantians (P. Struve and Bulgakov) have extolled (Economy and Right),12) and I have decidedly taken the side of the monist.13) Stammler particularly infuriated me—I refuse to see in him even a hint of anything fresh, substantive.... Sheer epistemological scholasticism.14) Stupid "definitions" of the most mediocre jurist, in the worst sense of that word, and from them no less stupid "conclusions." After Stammler, I re-read the articles by Struve and Bulgakov in "New Word"15) and found that with neo-Kantianism it is indeed necessary to reckon seriously. I could not help myself and inserted remarks and attacks against it even in my reply to Struve (on his article in "Scientific Review"). Why and by whom the printing of this reply is being held up, I do not understand. They said it would be in No. 6 of "Scientific Review." It is not there. Meanwhile, my silence is already producing awkward things for me: for example, Nezhdanov's article in No. 4 of "Life") and a reply to Bulgakov.16) I say "I could not help myself" because I am very well aware of my philosophical ignorance and do not intend to write on these themes until I have studied them. Now I am engaged precisely in this, having begun with Holbach and Helvetius and intending to move on to Kant. I have obtained the main works of the main classical philosophers, but I do not have neo-Kantian books (I have only ordered Lange). Please let me know if you or your comrades have them and could you share them with me.

On the same question I was extremely interested by a review in No. 5 of "Nachalo" (May—suffering from tuberculosis in its final degree) of Bogdanov's book. I do not understand how I could have missed the announcement of this book's appearance. I have only just ordered it. Already from Bogdanov's first book I suspected a monist, and the title and content of the second book reinforces my suspicions. And how inappropriately—how vapidly and inappropriately arrogantly—this review is written. Not a word to the point and... a reproach for ignoring Kantianism, although from the reviewer's own words it is clear that Bogdanov does not ignore Kantianism, but rejects it, standing on a different point of view in philosophy.... I think (if I have not erred about Bogdanov) that it will be impossible to leave this review without an answer.17) I only do not understand one thing: how could Kamenskii leave unanswered the articles by Struve and Bulgakov in "New Word" against Engels. Will you not explain this to me?18)

Your communication about the reaction against Marxism that has begun in Petersburg was news to me. I am bewildered. "Reaction"—meaning from among the Marxists? What kind? From P. B. [Struve] himself? Is he and his company developing a tendency toward union with liberals?? I will await your explanations with great impatience. That "critics" only confuse the public, giving nothing of substance in return—with this I am in complete agreement, as I am with the fact that with them (especially concerning Bernstein) a serious war will be necessary (but will it be, and where will it be fought?...). If P. B. [Struve] "completely ceases to be a Genosse," the worse for him. This will, of course, be an enormous loss for all the Genossen, because he is a very talented and knowledgeable man, but, naturally, "friendship is friendship, but service is service," and from this the necessity of war does not disappear. I fully understand and share your "fury" provoked by the epithet "abominable"(sic....) with respect to the monist—why? for an article's sake in Neue Zeit? for an open letter to Kautsky about who will bury whom? and I am very interested in his reply to your letter, pouring out this fury20) (I still have not seen Bernstein).21) A thorough reckoning22) is of course necessary, but it will not and cannot appear in "Nachalo" or "Life": only separate articles against the "critics" of Marxism will appear. What is needed for it is precisely a third type of literature and Platform23) (if I understand you correctly). Only then will Genossen finally be separated from "outsiders" and "hangers-on," and only then will no personal whims or theoretical "earth-shattering discoveries" create confusion and anarchy. The damned Russian disorganization is to blame for all of this.

In what way your article (I read only the first) on inheritance was directed against the Petersburg people is unclear to me. I have not seen the article "Not in Order." Send it.

Regarding lightning rod24) I would very much like to converse in more detail and thoroughly. But that, apparently, should be another time. My sentence ends on 29 I 1900. If only they do not extend it—the greatest misfortune that sometimes befalls exiles in Eastern Siberia. I dream of Pskov. And you, what do you dream of?

Nadia sends her greetings. I shake your hand firmly.
Vladimir Ulyanov.

P. S. I have just re-read the end of my article against Bulgakov in draft form.... and I see that my tone there is conciliatory: I, they say, am an "orthodox" and decisive opponent of "critics" (I said this directly), but one should not exaggerate these disagreements (as Mr. Bulgakov does) in the face of common enemies. It is quite possible that this "conciliatory" tone (I am trying with all my might to soften myself and polemicize as a Genosse) will prove inappropriate or even ridiculous if expressions like... "abominable" come into play, if the "critics" provoke a final reckoning. I would then find myself "guilty without guilt": not having seen Bernstein's book, not knowing all the views of the "critics," standing at a "respectable distance," I was still looking (when I wrote this article) in a completely "old-fashioned" way, simply as a contributor to "Nachalo".... It seems to me that my assertion that the theory of class struggle has not been touched by "criticism" is incorrect?25)